Antimagic Field vs. See Invisibility

[Kaisoku]

For additional opinion..

See Invisibility just alters your ability to see. Vision doesn't require line of effect, just line of sight. Anti-magic, even if you ruled that it did block line of effect, still doesn't block line of sight (there isn't an opaque barrier of some kind).

The See Invisibility spell is a range personal/you, so it's modifying "you". Since you can still see through an anti-magic field, you can still see things on the other side with all the benefits "you" have.

I'd even say you could see into the anti-magic field, although that would only ever be a problem with a single creature (Invisible Stalker, since it has natural invisibility). The "brought into" part of anti-magic field means you'd have to walk into the field after the see invisibility spell was cast and "bring it" into the field, thus being suppressed, since the spell's effect starts and ends at the user side.

For a nice similar example, look at the Wall of Force. It's "see through", but it blocks line of effect for spells. However, you can still see through it, and gaze attacks still work (since they are vision based.. you see it, you are affected).
This is another case of "line of effect vs line of sight".

 

[Dingo333]

I have to agree with the people here, the field would have no effect on your see invisibility spell unless you stepped into the field

That said, my only experience with anti magic fields in game are bad (like suddenly a very large, very thin field popping up and my wildshape being cut short) and I don't believe my DM uses them correctly. Would hate to see what he would do if I tried to cast one: "your anti magic field suppresses itself" or something like that

 

[Kaisoku]

That said, my only experience with anti magic fields in game are bad (like suddenly a very large, very thin field popping up and my wildshape being cut short) and I don't believe my DM uses them correctly.

Indeed. Considering the effect specifically calls out that it only "suppresses" effects, not end them, a very thin field wouldn't really do anything.
At best, it'd "blip" you into your normal form and back as you walked across it.

Might be good as a detection effect to see if anyone is trying to sneak into a place disguised.

 

[jefgorbach]

Concerro is correct ... the only person being affected by the AMF is the PC in the middle, unless your campaign previously stated AMF causes some sort of hindrance to NORMAL vision by being blurry, semi-transparent, or the like.

 

[kcmopd1913]

Thanks everyone for their input. I have been vindicated

This was a game changer that did not go so well the us PC's. This would have changed the entire outcome of the game session.

 

[Dingo333]

Indeed. Considering the effect specifically calls out that it only "suppresses" effects, not end them, a very thin field wouldn't really do anything.
At best, it'd "blip" you into your normal form and back as you walked across it

If I had been walking through the field, that wouldn't have been so bad

I was an owl scouting an enemy camp at the time the field appeared, and by scouting, I mean flying 50ft above the camp when my wild shape ended

 

[Tovec]

For additional opinion..

See Invisibility just alters your ability to see. Vision doesn't require line of effect, just line of sight. Anti-magic, even if you ruled that it did block line of effect, still doesn't block line of sight (there isn't an opaque barrier of some kind).

The See Invisibility spell is a range personal/you, so it's modifying "you". Since you can still see through an anti-magic field, you can still see things on the other side with all the benefits "you" have.

I'd even say you could see into the anti-magic field, although that would only ever be a problem with a single creature (Invisible Stalker, since it has natural invisibility). The "brought into" part of anti-magic field means you'd have to walk into the field after the see invisibility spell was cast and "bring it" into the field, thus being suppressed, since the spell's effect starts and ends at the user side.

For a nice similar example, look at the Wall of Force. It's "see through", but it blocks line of effect for spells. However, you can still see through it, and gaze attacks still work (since they are vision based.. you see it, you are affected).
This is another case of "line of effect vs line of sight".

If it were seeing a creature (just standing there in the dark) with some sort of darkvision granted by a magical source change your minds?

How about sound - a similar sensory input - being cut off by a Silence spell. I "ruled" the way I did because I saw no way of him seeing the target anyway except through the antimagic field.

What if it were a gaze attack, via magic. Or a ray, with ranged touch.
Or a even another spell requiring line of effect but not line of sight - its a hallway and the antimagic field is bigger than the "gaps" between sender and receiver. Unless it goes around and finds another entrance into the dungeon, how does it effect the target?

I still absolutely agree with the DM.

 

[Dingo333]

@ Tovec: Let me point out a line in the description of AMF

An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you. The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.
Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines

The field does not hamper vision of anyone outside of the field thus it is invisible

Also, the field only affects magic inside of it.

Should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field.

Meaning if a giant goes invisible and enters the field, you will be able to see its legs but any part not in the field is not visible because it is outside the field and, as stated by the spell, unaffected

On a side note, see invisibility would let you see the barrier it sounds. Is the field considered an object?

 

[Kaisoku]

If it were seeing a creature (just standing there in the dark) with some sort of darkvision granted by a magical source change your minds?

Nope. Nothing in darkvision states that you need line of effect. It's black and white vision, not sonar magical sound emitting vision.

How about sound - a similar sensory input - being cut off by a Silence spell.

The silence spell specifies sound as what it affects. Anti-magic specifies only magic entering the area.

What if it were a gaze attack, via magic.

As with the wall of force example I gave, gaze attacks would work.

Or a ray, with ranged touch.

See, that one needs line of effect. So no, it would not work, obviously.

Or a even another spell requiring line of effect but not line of sight - its a hallway and the antimagic field is bigger than the "gaps" between sender and receiver. Unless it goes around and finds another entrance into the dungeon, how does it effect the target?

This assumes that See Invisibility needs to emit something through the anti-magic field to work. It doesn't (range personal).

Otherwise, the same argument could be held against the invisible person. The invisibility effect makes it so you aren't visible. The light you are reflecting isn't visible by normal means.
Should the "invisible" light coming off you then not work when passing through the anti-magic field, so anyone inside or on the other side could potentially see you then?

How about Disguise Self? Same thing here... it's "emitting" a different, magical, image.

Should anti-magic field now replace features from True Seeing?

This is what happens when you start plugging extra effects onto spells that are not called out in the description. Remember, this stuff is magic. It doesn't have to make "scientific" logic (darkvision doesn't have to be sonar vision), it has to make "magical" logic.